3 ms·

Co-ops, unions and non-profits are detrimental to private capital profit and thus they tend to get marginalized when private ownership becomes too powerful. E.g

Co-ops, unions and non-profits are detrimental to private capital profit and thus they tend to get marginalized when private ownership becomes too powerful. E.g. telecoms were co-ops, but then privatized and the memberships-turned-shares were amassed by big investors. Similar happened to banks in the UK (in Finland many non-profit banks were more or less plundered to bankcrupty). That said, co-ops are still huge in Finnish retail, banking and insurance (to great annoyance of the right). But they nowadays they tend to even sort of hide being a co-op and economy is mostly discussed as for-profits vs gov ownership. Other than for-profit doesn't really sit that nicely in the neoliberal ideology. Co-ops are quite a different form of ownership from private corporations and bring about different kinds of economic organization that is e.g. more robust against offshoring, speculation and asset-stripping. The type of ownership, i.e. what is enforced by the law, and violence in the extreme case, is the crux of any economic system. E.g. socialism vs capitalism difference is essentially what kind of ownership is enforced by law/state/community.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> Co-ops are quite a different form of ownership from private corporations and bring about different kinds of economic organization that is e.g. more robust against offshoring, speculation and asset-stripping. Can you explain how that is? My conception is if I set up a company today that has as part of its rules the idea that when any employee joins/leaves shares (or virtual shares) with voting rights are rebalanced, do I not have the basic elements of a co-op? Aren't co-ops still for-profit?
- jampekka 3y ago
  There are different kinds of co-ops. Most in Finland at least are consumer co-ops. You join the co-op by buying a membership/share at a fixed price from the co-op (the share is created at the spot, there's always as many shares as members. The price is typically mostly nominal, e.g. 50 eur). The share can't be resold (you can end your membership and you get the share price back) and one person can only buy one share. Each share gets one vote in the co-op election. The co-op can run a profit, but typically the charter is to provide some service (e.g. retail or banking) for the members (and typically for non-members too). Profits can be shared as dividends for the shares, but this is quite rare nowadays, and more often used to invest in new stores etc and/or lower prices. It typically doesn't make much sense for the members that e.g. your grocery store is moved to Bangladesh, so that quite rare. Worker co-ops are a bit different. You have to work at the co-op to have a share, and the payout is typically the salary. But crucially an investor can't just buy shares and just move the production to Congo and kick out the employees etc what for-profits do all the time if it gives the owners a higher profit.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > But crucially an investor can't just buy shares and just move the production to Congo and kick out the employees etc what for-profits do all the time if it gives the owners a higher profit. Sigh. No they don't. Most for-profits are small businesses. It's really hard to break through the fog of "I'm all right Jack"-inspired attitudes to businesses. But yes, agree - joining gives you one voting right; the shares can't be bought and sold. That's what I mean about that being a perfectly normal thing to have under capitalism. As long as it's a legal and free agreement between employee and employer, capitalism is very happy with it.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      Are you claiming that production isn't being moved to cheaper labor countries all the time? Also small businesses, though usually through buyouts by bigger companies. Very small companies, which are essentially self-employment (and thus worker owned) not so much. Yes, the legal framework of liberalism typically does allow for a wide variety of contractual associations. Some are more conducive to capitalism, i.e. extracting profits from work (typically by others) by the sole virtue of ownership.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Some are more conducive to capitalism, i.e. extracting profits from work (typically by others) by the sole virtue of ownership. Working for yourself is also capitalism. All of the contractual associations we've mentioned work well in capitalism. Your "extracting profits from work" characterization is misplaced. A self-employed plumber extracts profits from work in a sense, but it's a biased way to put it. Everyone who starts a business and loses money isn't extracting profits. A more neutral way is "people work and pay based on voluntary agreements, under law". Which would include the co-op arrangement we've mentioned.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> Co-ops are quite a different form of ownership from private corporations and bring about different kinds of economic organization that is e.g. more robust against offshoring, speculation and asset-stripping. Can you explain how that is? My conception is if I set up a company today that has as part of its rules the idea that when any employee joins/leaves shares (or virtual shares) with voting rights are rebalanced, do I not have the basic elements of a co-op? Aren't co-ops still for-profit?

jampekka 3y ago
There are different kinds of co-ops. Most in Finland at least are consumer co-ops. You join the co-op by buying a membership/share at a fixed price from the co-op (the share is created at the spot, there's always as many shares as members. The price is typically mostly nominal, e.g. 50 eur). The share can't be resold (you can end your membership and you get the share price back) and one person can only buy one share. Each share gets one vote in the co-op election. The co-op can run a profit, but typically the charter is to provide some service (e.g. retail or banking) for the members (and typically for non-members too). Profits can be shared as dividends for the shares, but this is quite rare nowadays, and more often used to invest in new stores etc and/or lower prices. It typically doesn't make much sense for the members that e.g. your grocery store is moved to Bangladesh, so that quite rare. Worker co-ops are a bit different. You have to work at the co-op to have a share, and the payout is typically the salary. But crucially an investor can't just buy shares and just move the production to Congo and kick out the employees etc what for-profits do all the time if it gives the owners a higher profit.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > But crucially an investor can't just buy shares and just move the production to Congo and kick out the employees etc what for-profits do all the time if it gives the owners a higher profit. Sigh. No they don't. Most for-profits are small businesses. It's really hard to break through the fog of "I'm all right Jack"-inspired attitudes to businesses. But yes, agree - joining gives you one voting right; the shares can't be bought and sold. That's what I mean about that being a perfectly normal thing to have under capitalism. As long as it's a legal and free agreement between employee and employer, capitalism is very happy with it.
  - jampekka 3y ago
    Are you claiming that production isn't being moved to cheaper labor countries all the time? Also small businesses, though usually through buyouts by bigger companies. Very small companies, which are essentially self-employment (and thus worker owned) not so much. Yes, the legal framework of liberalism typically does allow for a wide variety of contractual associations. Some are more conducive to capitalism, i.e. extracting profits from work (typically by others) by the sole virtue of ownership.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Some are more conducive to capitalism, i.e. extracting profits from work (typically by others) by the sole virtue of ownership. Working for yourself is also capitalism. All of the contractual associations we've mentioned work well in capitalism. Your "extracting profits from work" characterization is misplaced. A self-employed plumber extracts profits from work in a sense, but it's a biased way to put it. Everyone who starts a business and loses money isn't extracting profits. A more neutral way is "people work and pay based on voluntary agreements, under law". Which would include the co-op arrangement we've mentioned.